Sorry, I missed some posts while I was typing my last!

 Quote: debbie bruce

I think that people often want to blame nutty behavior on supposed past abuse rather than admitting that the dog is mentally deficient.

Yes, I think that's true. But I've also seen the flip side where people give up on their dogs very easily by blaming it on bad genetics. That's why I, as a trainer, would like to be able to know if there ever are any other signs other than progress over time.

I think it is about time, though. But how much time is enough time to decide? What amount of progress should be made by x number of days? It's never that simple, for sure, and you can't set a deadline. Every dog is different and all owners aren't created equally in their skills or knowledge, either.

But it is a question people ask..."when do I know if it's genetics or something I can see acceptable progress if I just work on it long enough?" Sure, people are willing to give their dogs lots of time when their dog's fearful behavior only means a tucked tail or hiding. But if that fear causes aggression, I've seen many people offer the dog considerably less time to come around.

Amber wrote in part:
How can you tell if a dog with no known history is fearful because of a lack of socialization/exposure or because of bad genetics?

The dog with good genetics can come back and the dog that can't, doesn't.

I think a dog's fate is tied to how long and how much work a person wants to put into them more than their genetic tendancies.
Some people will live with a mentally deficient dog for years while some people won't give a good dog two days.
I think the only way to asses a dog is with time, training and evaluation by an experienced and skilled handler.

 Quote: Norman Epstein

Amber wrote in part:
How can you tell if a dog with no known history is fearful because of a lack of socialization/exposure or because of bad genetics?

The dog with good genetics can come back and the dog that can't, doesn't.

This is what I believe as well. But I think I should clarify my question because I think maybe people are misunderstanding what I'm asking : Are there *early* signs that differentiates a dog with bad genetics from one with issues in socialization, trauma, etc. or is it *only* time that tells?

For example, a quicker startle response or would perhaps additional oddities such as excessive self-chewing or tail-chasing or obsessive behaviors be a good earlier indicator of bad genetics over a socialization issue?

 Quote: Amber Morgan

For example, a quicker startle response or would perhaps additional oddities such as excessive self-chewing or tail-chasing or obsessive behaviors be a good earlier indicator of bad genetics over a socialization issue?

no, those are just indications of the level of distress the dog is in.
You said it - Time will tell. You do what you know to do, be consistent, and see where that gets you.

 Quote: debbie bruce

I think a dog's fate is tied to how long and how much work a person wants to put into them more than their genetic tendancies.

I agree with this. I worked with a foster I ultimately ended up adopting years ago. He was the proverbial "loose screw" at the no - kill shelter I was consulting for. He was a seized fighting dog that was sweet with people, but had a lot of fear related issues. When I took him on, it was with the knowledge that I was the last shot before the shelter modified their position and put him down. I took him on because the shelter refused to put him to sleep until a trainer fostered him to re-train him, "just in case he could be saved" This dog had lived at the shelter for almost a year, before that he was badly abused. He had, in the past jumped through closed windows to avoid something that scared him, among other things. He was also a dog bred for aggression, genetically. He never became perfect, but he did get better - significantly. It was slow at first, but then the sucess came faster and faster. He never liked other dogs, but learned that they would not be allowed to torment him, and learned to behave appropriately. He went through about 2 years where it looked like it could go either way sometimes. Eventually, he became a therapy dog. His last three years were lived out at a nursing home where he did most of his therapy in his earlier years. He had both lack of socialization and exposure as well as genetic issues going, and it took him a while. The first four months were horrible. But he was able to move past it. I'm not saying that all dogs should be viewed like this - I think there are many times where it is kinder to put the dog down. But with proper leadership, I think there are some dogs that can still overcome this.

Great question Amber.

I'm not sure you can tell. And fear can also be a learned behavior so another option to consider.

As a survival mechanism fear is hardwired into all dogs, poorly bred and well bred alike. There are of course huge variances in how and when it is manifested and what is considered normal vs abnormal fear responses. I guess in knowing this you could technically say all fear is genetic.

I don't have an answer to your question but I have included a link to an article which also doesn't have the answer but it does describe in great detail the effects of lack of socialization which might give you a little more insight into the role that plays on behavior. Happy reading.

http://www.wsgenetics.info/development_of_the_young_dog.htm

 Quote:

That there isn't a problem with the dog because it has weak genes or an abusive past, it's because it had no leadership to trust in.

Cameron, dogs without leaders can often become leaders. How do you explain a confident unfearful dog that has never recieved human leadership?

Or a dog that has always had clear leadership from humans that still starts and spooks and whose natural inclination is to run away from a loud sudden noise behind them?

Weak nerves is defined by me as a dog that is easily put into avoidance. Avoidance being running away, self preservation. the Flight response of fight or flight.

A dog can be conditioned to stay put and to trust in its pack leader but whether or not the dog stays put it still wants to run. A weak nerved dog would not be able to function without leadership and would only be conditioned to function with it.

A strong nerved dog can function with or without it. A strong nerved dog does not have to be taught confidence so much as have it reinforced.

A dogs other traits come into play depending on what the dog is faced with, but I do firmly believe that like drive, nerves are an inheritable and inborn, not a strictly learned or conditioned trait.

Amber, I think genetics play a big part and socialization/environmental exposure comes in second.

A dog born with stronger nerves will invesigate and learn from things that startle it. A dog born with weak nerves doesn't really care, it just wants to get away. Dogs born with strong nerves are naturally more confident and learn to be confident through investigating things. Weak nerved dogs don't learn to be confident because they don't stick around to see that the scary thing they ran away from really wouldn't hurt them.

Socialization and environmental exposure is important in building confidence in a variety of things and teaching a pup/dog to be confident in new and strange situations. You can build confidence but you cannot build nerve.

A lot of issues I see with dogs that are fearful is a combination of lack of socialization and not the strongest nerve quality. If the dog is scared matters less than what is does when/after it is scared. How fast a dog recovers from something gives an insight into how strong a nerve it has.

Leadership plays a part, but nerve quality, IMO, is genetic.

 Quote: Jennifer Marshal

Leadership plays a part, but nerve quality, IMO, is genetic.

\I agree very much with this statement. As for your questions, I don't think that leadership counters genetics, I just think that it supports it and brings out the best possible scenario in the dog. If the dog is so weak that it always has a startle reflex, then that is that, and no amount of exposure will change it. But a good handler will try to keep these exposures to a minimum. A confident dog with no leadership isn't really what was being discussed (I thought) so I'm not really sure what you are looking for in an answer there...
A confident dog (in my experience) will assume a leadership role itself if the position is vacant, because someone has to be in charge. I don't think a dog needs a human guidance to know how to be a leader, or how to recognize a leader. But I do think that a dog needs to be able to look to it's handler as a confident leader in order to have any chance to rehab. Is this what you were asking me? (sorry if I am just not understanding you)

Nature verse Nurture this is not a debate of either/or. Both are extremely important.
Nature determines the maximum potential possible with few exceptions. Nurture determines how close to that maximum you can come.
There are some exeptions to this rule but they are rare.